McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

Okay.  That's enough now.  Or else.

[Alice Purjorick]

Its been 12 hours now since sunnys first off topic ad hom post was directed at me...and still not stopped ...carry on the pointless posts...are the sceptics trying to set a record today

Who knows? I don't the sceptics are a cohesive force with a common goal or opinion.
It is rather puerile to think otherwise.
But your posts seem to be setting a record for lack of knowledge w.r.t law, the ECHR and the ECtHR.
But keep on, it's good entertainment value if nothing else.

[Alice Purjorick]

Ooops crossed post sorry boss 

[Eleanor]

Ooops crossed post sorry boss 

Thank You.

[Mr Gray]

Who knows? I don't the sceptics are a cohesive force with a common goal or opinion.
It is rather puerile to think otherwise.
But your posts seem to be setting a record for lack of knowledge w.r.t law, the ECHR and the ECtHR.
But keep on, it's good entertainment value if nothing else.

then point out where I am wrong...the....its good entertainment..... goad is more than a little tired and overused now

[slartibartfast]

Ive expalined several times........if the mccanns receive a favourable judgeemnt at the ECHR.....and amaral repeats his claims....then a new trial could be held and the court would need to enforce current ECHr law and find in favour of the McCanns....If the mccanns had not gone to the ECHR....amaral could continualy repeat his claims with impunity...in reality hes gone rather quiet

Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.

[Mr Gray]

Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.

it wouldnt be the same complaint if you read my post....if amaral repeats his claim it would be a new complaint...and its not up to portuguese law...its ECHR law that counts in this case. the SC were at pains to show it complied with ECHR law....are you suggesting in future it would just ignore it

[Eleanor]

Portuguese Law will not change as a result of a McCann case to the ECHR. So they couldn't go back to court with the same complaint.

They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.

[Mr Gray]

They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.

precisely

[Sunny]

They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.

But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.

There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know.  Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.

All IMO

[Mr Gray]

But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.

There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know.  Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.

All IMO

Portugal law has not stayed the same....its been influenced by the ECHR...i will add...imo...so I do not have to supply a cite

[Eleanor]

But that won't undo the SC ruling Eleanor and I would imagine it would depend up on what Goncalo Amaral actually said following a positive McCann ECHR ruling.

There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know.  Some have had their appeals at the SC upheld and some have not. The law in Portugal stayed the same from what I have seen.

All IMO

I very much doubt that you could prove your second sentence.

Your first sentence is just a repeat of the same old same old, of which I have had enough.

[jassi]

They could, if The ECHR rules in favour of The McCanns and Amaral mouths off again.

He probably doesn't need to. He has made his point, much to McCann fury and chagrin.

[Mr Gray]

He probably doesn't need to. He has made his point, much to McCann fury and chagrin.

I would say anyone who believes in justice would be offended by what amaral has said and what he has been allowed to get away with..its an affront to justice imo...and will be corrected by the ECHR

[Sunny]

I very much doubt that you could prove your second sentence.

Your first sentence is just a repeat of the same old same old, of which I have had enough.

My first sentence was factual and relevant to Davel's claim IMO.

My second sentence was this

There have been defamation cases in Portugal before the McCanns you know

Do you really need me to provide a cite for this?